by liberal japonicus
Probably need a thread about the shutdown and all those inside baseball-y things, though I’ll be damned if I can think of anything to say. The college coach, Rick Pitino described his defense as the ‘Mother-in-law defense’, which was a full-court press that he said was based on ‘constant harassment’, and that is my feeling of what Dems and the left should employ. So for me, all this discussion about figuring out what to do is a little like how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
Anyway, an Ezra Klein interview with Jon Favreau that chews the fat on that.
The decision that the Democrats face, it seems to me, amounts first to whether to attack on all fronts, or to pick one (or, at most two) fronts. My sense is that, while they find themselves in a target-rich environment, they will do better to pick one. The general public is not going to spend the time and effort to understand multiple issues. So focus, focus, focus.
The next question is: which issue? Obvious choices being 1) health care and the impact that Republican policy, as displayed in their budget, will have: skyrocket costs and even making it largely unavailable in places. The fact that those places are generally rural (i.e. deep red) areas is a bonus. 2) ICE and what it is doing to everything from local businesses to food prices.
What they should not do is put all there efforts into fighting Trump’s threat to democracy in America and our form of government overall. Granted, it’s enormously important issue. But it simply doesn’t resonate with the voters (and potential voters) that Democrats need to reach. That doesn’t mean ignoring the issue. By all means support those pushing it. But don’t make it focus. It’s satisfying harassment if you are a non-MAGA activist, but it won’t influence existing Republican Representatives (except, maybe, to do dumb things) and it won’t win votes next year.
One wildcard is the military. A lot of enlisted military live pretty much paycheck to paycheck. And their next paycheck, in a few days, isn’t happening at the moment. Democrats are pushing a special bill to at least pay them, even if not other government employees. But since the Speaker is keeping the House in recess** that can’t happen. The military is stationed in relatively compact areas. So messages targetting those locales would be worthwhile. The military leans conservative, but being unable to feed their families is something that way overwhelms that inclination. And it’s something they won’t forget.
To repeat: focus, focus, focus.
** The actual reason may be something else. But a plausible explanation is the newly elected Representative from Arizona. When the House comes back into session, she gets sworn in; until that she technically isn’t yet a member. That matters because she would be the last signature necessary for the discharge petition which will lead to making the Epstein files public. The longer Johnson can stall, the longer he and, more to the point, Trump have to lean on the handful of Republican Representatives who have signed the petition. I have no idea what’s in there, but the desperation to keep it quiet is palpable.
Democrats always focus on health care.
Nobody cares.
Nobody cares that if could/should be better. But raise the price of what they already have substantially? Take it away altogether? Whole different kettle of fish.
You can tell the difference between the Dems with close union ties and allies and the ones who have never been a part of a union and only have ties to people in management.
Healthcare codes as a management concern. It doesn’t register for workers as a policy thing so much as it does a wages and benefits thing. Policy details don’t land with working class voters because those decisions are made by other people. What matters is whether they are feeling like government is fighting for workers or for the big people.
I really think it’s that simple. Low information voters don’t listen to policy discussions, and they don’t trust people who spend all their time talking about that stuff. It’s a cultural divide.
Until they lose it, or can’t afford it. Especially if they or someone they care about has an expensive and / or chronic illness.
I also disagree with nous’ thought that health care “codes” as a management issue. At the policy level, it does. At the level of “do I have to choose between health insurance and rent” it does not.
IMO (D)’s do well to hammer the hell out of this one.
I second wjca’s thought that most people aren’t really motivated by the whole “threat to democracy” thing. “People Like Me” might be, most people aren’t. The connection between that and their daily life is not always clear.
I’d go so far as to say if you give a lot of people a choice betwen democracy and a basic level of personal and financial security, they would choose the latter without a second thought.
“Democracy” is kind of abstract. “My job is going away” is not. “I can’t afford insulin” is not. “My hospital closed and the nearest one now is an hour away (or two hours away, or not even in my state)” is not. “I can’t afford to not work, but I can’t afford to pay for care for my kid” is not. “I work a full time job and have to take care of my disabled kid / my parent with Alzheimers / my partner who had a stroke” is not.
The price of eggs is too small bore. Have you lost your job? Are you clinging to a job you don’t really like because you don’t know if you can find another one? Do you make enough to buy a house? Do you make enough to start a family? Do you have a kid that needs any kind of special ed? Trump just took that away. Can your kids afford to go to college without taking on six figures of debt? If they don’t go to college, can they find a job – not just a “job”, but a career, a path in life – that will give them a decent quality of life?
Does your life feel stable? Can you see a path forward for yourself and your family, if you have one? Can you see a path forward to the life you thought you might have?
How worried are you about your future?
When I listen to folks, especially young folks (which for me at this point is basically anybody 45 or younger) this is the stuff that nags at them.
(D)’s should absolutely give zero ground on basic human rights. Women’sLGBTQ, trans people, black people, Latinos, immigrants of any stripe.
Defend them all. Do not give an inch.
But that needs to happen in a context that makes people understand that those folks’ rights are not being defended at the expense of everybody else. That the (D)’s are not forgetting the folks who aren’t “marginal” – not a member of a non-mainstream demographic.
I.e., to more or less stereotype it, people who might self-describe as more or less a plugger. Someone trying to do the right things, trying to “play by the rules”. Someone who isn’t trying to change the world, they’re just trying to take care of themselves and their family. And who nonetheless finds themselves lying awake at night trying to figure out how to make it work.
(D)’s should be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. They should be able to say “those people who aren’t like you are no threat to you, they’re just living their lives” AND ALSO say “we see how tentative life is for you, here is what we will do to help that”.
Not either / or.
It’s a really unsettled time, people are worried, and everything Trump does makes it worse. Hammer that, every single day.
If you aren’t rich, Donald J Trump is making your life worse. Less secure.
Are you rich? What exactly are you getting out of this administration?
Hammer that.
Shorter me:
Pick any Trump policy or action. Call attention to it.
Then ask the question “How is that making your life better”?
Unless you’re rich or wanna-be rich, it’s not. And even if you’re just wanna-be rich, it likely is not.
“How is [insert Trump policy here] making YOU’RE life better”?
I can’t think of a single Trump policy or action that passes that test.
Pretty much everything russell says @ – oh, no time stamp. His longer comment anyway.
russell – I also disagree with nous’ thought that health care “codes” as a management issue. At the policy level, it does. At the level of “do I have to choose between health insurance and rent” it does not.
Then we agree, because that is what I was trying to get at with my: It doesn’t register for workers as a policy thing so much as it does a wages and benefits thing. The voters that the Dems are losing are going to tune out as soon as the conversation starts focusing on the details of health policy, same as rank-and-file union members start getting sore feet and shuffling as soon as the rep with the bullhorn starts babbling on about the importance of changing the language in Article 5 Part 3 of the CBA.
Keep the language focused on struggles and outcomes and whose side you are fighting on. And if there are cleavage lines over policy choices, focus on the need for solidarity.
In line with this discussion, Ryan Powers’ op ed at the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/12/democrats-etiquette-dangerous-democracy
In elite liberal spaces, the expectation is always the same: stay quiet, exit gracefully, never make a scene. Yet nonviolent unruliness has power precisely because it breaks the code of composure. Psychologists call this the “expectancy violations theory”: when behavior defies what’s anticipated, it commands outsized attention and carries significant weight. That impact is magnified when it comes from insiders with status or access.
This dynamic suggests that liberalism’s best strategy is to subvert its own norms. Critics may argue that spectacle undermines substance, or that breaking etiquette diminishes the credentials that lend Democrats authority. But in today’s attention economy, spectacle is often how substance gets noticed. Breaking strict decorum is not the enemy of liberalism; it may be the very tool that keeps it alive.
Worth a read. Someone will hopefully send it to Chuck Schumer.
In elite liberal spaces
As so often, we wonder just what definition of “elite” is being used here.
wj – As so often, we wonder just what definition of “elite” is being used here.
He covers that earlier: The real answer is that the most powerful liberal institutions – the Democratic establishment, major donors and the professional class around them – are captive to outdated etiquette.
It’s the DNC and those with input into the strategy side.
I liked that Ryan Powers article. It’s possible that my calls for civility can be misinterpreted as a call for “etiquette” or “decorum”. I’m very aware of how often we misunderstand each other (two countries separated by a common language etc). In fact, I approve wholeheartedly of taking hard, tough action against the enemies of democracy, and of calling a spade a spade. If someone (Trump, Vance anybody else, including Ds) lies, I favour calling it lies. If a policy which e.g. directly contradicts what the ruling party said they would do while campaigning is introduced by stealth, I approve of calling it out and doing what’s necessary to impede it. If attempts to subvert voting rights (gerrymandering etc) are made, I approve of doing what’s necessary to impede them. And if unconstitutional actions are made by the government, I approve of demonstrating and taking other necessary actions (law suits, states’ rights related etc) to oppose them. I agree that the Dem national leadership have been lily-livered and hidebound in their opposition by obsolete norms and assumptions.
What I mean by civility is the opposite of Ubu’s behaviour. You don’t have to insult and demean people to openly and factually describe what they’re doing, including how and why. Calling dishonest, corrupt politicians dishonest and corrupt when you can support the accusation is a moral and practical imperative. Where my call for what I call civility particularly applies is in two situations: 1. when arguing and debating with people who defend the actions of those in power, in which case it is perfectly possible to factually describe what is happening without insulting them (e.g. demonstrating that lies are lies), and 2. when arguing and debating with people who might otherwise be considered on the same side as oneself, when there are occasional doctrinal differences but their basic intentions are otherwise congruent with one’s own. In this second case, the irresistible case of the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea springs to mind; as well as being an illustration of a kind of narcissism of small differences, such infighting is counter-productive and does one’s opponents’ work for them.
Where American politics is concerned, I only wish there were more journalists and Dem politicians prepared to call a spade a spade, in such a way as to get their message truly across to the wider electorate. And I wish that there were platforms on which they could do so. Wit and creativity (like the dancing costumed protesters in Portland) really help in this, when enabled. And even Gavin Newsom’s attempt at wit is better than nothing!
Meanwhile, someone watching Trump’s speech in Israel just called me; apparently he turned to Keir Starmer and called him the President of Canada. That should go in a showreel along with the war he settled between Cambodia and Armenia. Talking of calling a spade a spade and getting it across to the wider electorate…
Well! I’d barely heard of this Ben Meiselas guy before, but it looks like he may be getting the message across – bigger audiences than Joe Rogan apparently. What do any ObWi people think of him?
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/oct/11/podcaster-ben-meiselas-on-taking-on-the-maga-media-and-winning-the-ratings-battle
Ben Meiselas pops on on my youtube list quite a lot, while I’m watching chess or cycling videos. I must click on enough of his stuff for it to keep being suggested to me.
But he’s not really my cup of tea. Ever since the primaries he’s been announcing several times a week that Trump is failing. It’s not sufficiently contemplative for me.
One issue which may not be a vote-winner but remains vitally important is climate change.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are surging. The climate is warming. And the US president lectures the UN that the whole thing is a hoax, on the basis of exactly zero scientific understanding. He simple says what he and his voters want to believe. Perversely, he is going out of his way to increase emissions.
What we are doing to the planet really matters. What the US is doing matters a lot, because why should poorer countries restrain themselves if the US won’t. It’s horrible that the dangers of fascism are so acute that the threat to the climate is often not close to the forefront of our concerns.
No question that climate change is criticality important. What it is not is an issue which will move votes. At this point, political campaigns simply cannot be about educating voters about things that the ought to care about. It has to be about getting them in side for the next election.
God willing, we will get back to a place where we can focus on educating voters. Rather than having to focus on saving the country. But we aren’t there now.
Pro Bono – What we are doing to the planet really matters. What the US is doing matters a lot, because why should poorer countries restrain themselves if the US won’t.
There is that, and also the data suggests that the top 1% of the world are responsible for 2/3 of the warming measured since 1990, and we have over 900 billionaires in our country. China is next closest with 516, and only 3 other nation states have more than 100.
But then here is another shocker – to be in the top 1% worldwide, you need only to make $60,000 a year*, so I’d guess that most of us writing here are in that 1%.
*If we are talking income rather than wealth. Wealth is probably a better measure, but it’s also a harder measure to come by.